Larry King recently hosted a "special event" broadcast to hundreds
of theaters across America. Titled "Beyond the Secret: Spiritual Power
and the Law of Attraction," the program is based on Rhonda Byrne's
best-selling New Age self-help book "The Secret." The book promises to
make dreams come true through positive thinking, and it has — at least
for Byrne and her publishers.

The Secret franchise (books, films, DVDs, etc.) has made piles of money, but questions remain about its validity.

"The Secret" claims to be based on science, at times borrowing
phrases from quantum physics. But the premise behind the book has been
disproved. According to Byrne, the secret is based on a New Age idea
called the "Law of Attraction." It states that similar things attract
each other, so positive thoughts bring positive things and negative
thoughts bring negative things. Therefore if we simply think about
things we want, we will get them.

There's a superficial logic to this, but in physics, it is opposites
— not similars — that attract. Regardless, the book's Law of Attraction
has nothing to do with science. One cannot simply wish, think, or feel
something into existence.

Bad logic

When scientists propose a new theory, they must explain how it works.
"The Secret," on the other hand, gets in deep trouble when it tries to
explain the mechanism by which the "Law of Attraction" supposedly
works. According to the idea, our thoughts somehow send out vibrations
that something in the universe somehow deciphers and responds to. If we
want to be thinner, or have a new car, the universe will somehow
provide it if we think about it. Positive thinking is easier than diet
and exercise or earning money to buy a car, but even if the "Law of
Attraction" exists, how exactly would the pounds come off, and the new
car appear?

There are other serious problems with the so-called scientific basis for "The Secret."
According to the book, "Everything that comes into your life you are
attracting into your life by your thoughts." Is this true? Everyone who
plays the lottery thinks about winning and being rich (otherwise they
wouldn't play), yet very few win. If the Law of Attraction works, why
would that be? Shouldn't all of the players win, if all it takes is
desire and thought?

According to the "Law of Attraction," if you have an accident or
disease, it's your fault, because your negative thoughts brought it on
yourself. If an airplane crashes, does that mean that one or more of
the passengers caused it? What about the thoughts of others on board
the plane? Did the one person's negative thoughts somehow override the
positive thoughts of the others, dooming them all?

There are a few positive messages amid the platitudes; of course an optimistic outlook is better
than a pessimistic one; and yes our thoughts and feelings influence how
we experience the world. This is no secret, and has nothing to do with
any so-called "Law of Attraction."

The origin of the secret

A sure sign of crank literature is a self-appointed expert whose
main source is a personal inspiration or revelation. If "The Secret"
has no basis in science, where did Byrne discover it?

She admits she just made it up, cobbling together ideas from quantum
physics, New Age mysticism, common-sense principles, and a 1910 book
called, ironically, "The Science of Getting Rich." Byrne decided that
she had stumbled on the key to the universe, and wrote a book about her
ideas, not bothering to check for logical errors or scientific reality.

The secret to book's success is its slick marketing campaign, mixing
banal truisms with New Agey magical thinking and presenting it as
hidden knowledge. "The Secret" is nothing new, nor is it a secret. For
decades, New Age and self-help books like this one have offered up easy
answers to life's problems. If any of those books worked, and really
contained the secrets to success, wealth, and happiness, they wouldn’t
need to publish more — and there would be no need for "Beyond the
Secret," "Return of the Secret," or "Son of the Secret.

Benjamin Radford is managing editor of the Skeptical Inquirer
science magazine. His books, films, and other projects can be found on
his website. His Bad Science column appears regularly on LiveScience.